DOCSLIB.ORG

Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress ALEXANDER HERTEL-FERNANDEZ Columbia University MATTO MILDENBERGER University of California Santa Barbara LEAH C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress ALEXANDER HERTEL-FERNANDEZ Columbia University MATTO MILDENBERGER University of California Santa Barbara LEAH C American Political Science Review, Page 1 of 18 doi:10.1017/S0003055418000606 © American Political Science Association 2018 Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress ALEXANDER HERTEL-FERNANDEZ Columbia University MATTO MILDENBERGER University of California Santa Barbara LEAH C. STOKES University of California Santa Barbara egislative staff link Members of Congress and their constituents, theoretically facilitating democratic representation. Yet, little research has examined whether Congressional staff actually recognize the Lpreferences of their Members’ constituents. Using an original survey of senior U.S. Congressional staffers, we show that staff systematically mis-estimate constituent opinions. We then evaluate the sources of these misperceptions, using observational analyses and two survey experiments. Staffers who rely more heavily on conservative and business interest groups for policy information have more skewed perceptions of constituent opinion. Egocentric biases also shape staff perceptions. Our findings complicate assumptions that Congress represents constituent opinion, and help to explain why Congress often appears so unre- sponsive to ordinary citizens. We conclude that scholars should focus more closely on legislative aides as key actors in the policymaking process, both in the United States and across other advanced democracies. INTRODUCTION electedofficials,thepublic,andinterestgroups.Aswewill document, despite their best efforts to estimate the epresentative democracy rests on the idea that fi preferences of their Members’ constituents, senior leg- elected of cials understand and act on their islative staff have very skewed perceptions of public ’ Rcitizens opinions. Yet research has struggled to attitudes. We also find that egocentric bias and interest demonstrate the link between representatives and their group contact, especially with conservative groups and constituents, especially in the United States. Instead, fi businesses, may drive some of the mismatch between there is growing evidence that elected of cials are more staffer perceptions and actual public opinion. responsive to interest groups and wealthier individuals We reach these conclusions using an original survey than to average citizens (Bartels 2008; Druckman and of senior legislative staffers in Congress merged with Jacobs 2015; Gilens 2012; Gilens and Page 2014) and mass public opinion data on five policies: gun control, that state politicians from both parties systematically carbon pollution restrictions, repeal of the Affordable overestimate the conservatism of their constituents 1 Care Act, infrastructure spending, and raising the (Broockman and Skovron 2018). Still, political scien- minimum wage. This approach allows us to examine tists do not have a clear picture of why legislators how well senior Congressional aides can characterize misperceive constituent preferences and respond so the public’s policy preferences. Across all five issues, we unequally to the mass public. In this paper, we examine find that staffers do not accurately identify their district one important and previously underappreciated mech- or state’s preferences and often overestimate their anism propagating inequalities in legislative responsive- constituents’ conservatism. We examine four explan- ’ ness: senior legislativestaffers perceptions, attitudes, and ations for the mismatch in staffers’ perceptions: electoral behaviors. Legislative staff act as a bridge between competitiveness; staffers’ personal policy preferences; staffers’ experience in Congress; and staffers’ inter- Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Assistant Professor, School of Inter- actions with interest groups. We find that staffers’ per- national and Public Affairs, Columbia Universty, alexander.hertel@ sonal policy preferences and their interest group contact gmail.com. correlate most strongly with the opinion-representation Matto Mildenberger, Assistant Professor, Department of Political AU1 Science, University of California Santa Barbara. gap. Staffers whose personal opinions deviated from Leah Stokes, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, their constituents’ opinions were less accurate in their University of California Santa Barbara, [email protected]. estimates of district and state preferences. In addition, Authors listed alphabetically and contributed equally to the project staffers who reported greater contact with corporate and AU2 design and manuscript. ideologically conservative interest groups over liberal fi The authors thank Geoffrey Henderson for terri c research support and mass-based citizen groups—whether measured and are grateful to Raymond O’Mara III, Lee Drutman, and Kevin Kosar for aid in drafting and disseminating the survey. Thanks to Tim through staffers’ own reports or campaign contributions LaPira, Robert Shapiro, Kent Jennings, and participants at the UC to that staffer’s Member—were less likely to get their Santa Barbara Psychology, Environment and Public Policy (PEPP) constituents’ preferences right. Seminar and the Columbia Sustainable Development Workshop and We present results from two survey experiments the MPSA Political Institutions and Elite Behavior 4 mini-conference embedded in the legislative staffer survey that provide for feedback on earlier drafts. The Dirksen Congressional Center credible causal evidence for interest groups’ role in provided funding for the project through its Congressional Research fi explaining the opinion-representation gap. Using a list Grant program. Replication les are available at the American Political fi Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OWQNVF. experiment, we nd that about 45% of senior legislative staffers report having changed their opinion about Received: February 4, 2017; revised: March 27, 2018; accepted: 15 August 2018. First published online: nnn legislation after a group gave their Member a campaign contribution. In a second experiment, we show that 1 But see Enns 2015; Erikson 2015 for opposing perspectives. staffers are more likely to interpret correspondence Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Matto Mildenberger, and Leah C. Stokes from businesses as being more representative of their still act as the heads of large “legislative enterprises,” constituents’ preferences than correspondence from with up to 18 full-time staff in US House offices and ordinary constituents. These findings provide evidence potentially dozens more in US Senate offices and that donor and interest group contact can shape how Congressional committees (cf. Salisbury and Shepsle staffers perceive policies, leading to constituent opinion 1981).3 mis-estimates. While some authors have argued that Congressional These results contribute to our understanding of staff ought to merely reflect Members’ preferences given Congress, legislative responsiveness, and political staffers’ career incentives for loyalty (DeGregorio 1988; inequality. Despite the fact that 80% of senior legislative Kingdon 1984, 1989), other research suggests that aides reported that constituent opinion was “extremely” staff exert a strong, independent effect on Member or “very” important in their recommendations to their behavior. Afterconducting extensive fieldwork in the bosses, most had only a limited ability to characterize 1970s, Malbin (1980)concludedthatwhilesome what their constituents actually preferred. Moreover, the Congressional staffers acted as effective surrogates prospect of more competitive elections—long thought to for their Members and constituents, in many other be an incentive for democratic representation—does not cases they were entrepreneurial, shaping legislation appear to spur greater congruence between senior on their own in meaningful ways. More recent staffers and their constituents. Instead, our observational analysis backs up this conclusion. Using a longi- and experimental evidence points to interest group tudinal dataset of staffers, Montgomery and Nyhan contact and egocentric bias as sources of the staffer- (2016)showthatMemberswhoexchangemore constituent representation gap. One reason why Con- senior staff behave more similarly than would oth- gress may seem so unresponsive to ordinary citizens is erwise be expected, even after taking into account that interest group lobbying and campaign contributions Member characteristics. skew staffers’ perceptions of their constituents. Since Given this evidence on staffers’ importance, this Congress, including staffers, hears muchmorefrequently paper poses three questions: To what extent do staffers from businesses, donors, and organized interest groups rely on their constituents’ preferences when crafting than individual citizens (Schlozman et al. 2012), staff may recommendations about policy for their Members? Are substitute interest groups’ and donors’ positions for staffers able to accurately assess those constituents’ constituent preferences. Our results highlight the need preferences? And, if not, why? These are similar for scholars of legislatures, lobbying, and public policy to questions to those long asked about Members of focusgreaterattentiononlegislativeaidesaskeyactorsin Congress (Erikson et al. 1975; Hedlund and Friesema the policymaking process, both in the United States and 1972; Miller and Stokes 1963); we instead place the focus other advanced democracies. on staffers (see also Broockman and Skovron 2018 for a similar approach to ours). Of course, staff may not possess the same incentives as politicians, and so it is worth reflecting on their LEGISLATIVE STAFF AND 4 POLITICAL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congress: Finding Directory Information on Members and Committees
    Order Code RL30017 Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Congress: Finding Directory Information on Members and Committees Updated March 20, 2003 Jesús Campos Information Research Specialist Information Research Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Congress: Finding Directory Information on Members and Committees Summary This guide describes selected printed and electronic reference sources that provide directory information about current Members of Congress and congressional committees. The electronic reference sources include CD-ROMs and Web sites. Among the resources listed are the Congressional Directory, the Almanac of American Politics, Tell It to Washington, C-SPAN Congress Guide, and Project Vote Smart. These resources may contain any or all of the following types of directory information for Members of the House and Senate: addresses, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail addresses, Web addresses, committee and subcommittee assignments, photographs, biographical information, and names of key staff. An appendix indexes each category and lists which sources include that type of directory information. This report will be updated for each Congress. Contents Introduction ......................................................1 Printed Publications................................................2 Almanac of American Politics ....................................2 The Capital Source ............................................2 Carroll’s Federal Directory .....................................2 Congress
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill 1 1
    Communicating with Congress Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill Made possible by grants from Adfero Group, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CQ Roll Call Special Thanks We are grateful to our sponsors, Adfero Group, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CQ Roll Call, who have supported this research and report. Their contributions have enabled us to continue the important work of the Communicating with Congress project and promote a more meaningful democratic dialogue. © 2011, Congressional Management Foundation. All Rights Reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced in any manner without the written permission of the Congressional Management Foundation, except brief quotations or charts used in critical articles or reviews. The Partnership For A More Perfect Union at the Congressional Management Foundation 513 Capitol Court NE, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0100 cmfweb.org pmpu.org Introduction “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” That statement by Thomas Jefferson is a commentary on citizens’ right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Effective communications and interactions between citizens and elected officials are essential to the democratic process, both to sustain the credibility of government and to maintain a free flow of ideas which can be integrated into policy decisions. However, since the introduction of the Internet, maintaining that free flow has been a challenge both for Congress and citizens. Congressional offices are overwhelmed with the significant increase in volume and the diversity of delivery methods used by advocate organizations. On the other hand, citizens and the advocacy community have been frustrated by the myriad of technological tools utilized by offices to authenticate that actual constituents are sending messages, yet result in technological and “user interface” obstacles to communications.
    [Show full text]
  • Kdittmar Invisible Forces November Draft
    Invisible Forces: Gender, Race, and Congressional Staff Kelly Dittmar, Ph.D. Rutgers University – Camden Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University – New Brunswick **WORKING PAPER** 1 INTRODUCTION Forty years ago, Harrison Fox and Susan Hammond published a seminal book on congressional staff, calling staffers “the invisible force in American lawmaking.” They were not the first observers of congressional dynamics to note the often unseen and under-investigated role of professional staff on Capitol Hill, nor have they been the last. Just two years later, Michael Malbin (1980) published Unelected Representatives: Congressional Staff and the Future of Representative Government, seeking to make visible what he perceived as an underappreciated level of staff influence on the policy process. By the mid-1990s, however, Herbert and Karen Foerstel (1996) still characterized congressional staff as representing “the large and influential Capitol Hill infrastructure” that is “invisible to most of the public” (145). Staff remained largely invisible to scholars as well, central to only a handful of book-length publications over the past four decades (Fox and Hammond 1977; Malbin 1980; Pierce 2014; Jones 2017a). The dearth of research on congressional professionals stands in stark contrast to the increased professionalization of the nation’s top legislative institution. The “ever-increasing complexity of governing,” as the national policy agenda has become larger and more complicated, has required members of Congress to hire specialists able to assist them in navigating the new political realities of effective representation (Romzek and Utter 1997, 1251; see also Polsby 1969). The Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and 1970 both increased manpower and encouraged specialization among staff and members, helping them to meet mounting legislative demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy and Legislative Research for Congressional Staff: Finding Documents, Analysis, News, and Training
    Policy and Legislative Research for Congressional Staff: Finding Documents, Analysis, News, and Training Updated June 28, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43434 Policy and Legislative Research for Congressional Staff Summary This report is intended to serve as a finding aid for congressional documents, executive branch documents and information, news articles, policy analysis, contacts, and training, for use in policy and legislative research. It is not intended to be a definitive list of all resources, but rather a guide to pertinent subscriptions available in the House and Senate in addition to selected resources freely available to the public. This report is intended for use by congressional staff and will be updated as needed. Congressional Research Service Policy and Legislative Research for Congressional Staff Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Congressional Documents ............................................................................................................... 1 Executive Branch Documents and Information ............................................................................... 9 Legislative Support Agencies ........................................................................................................ 12 News, Policy, and Scholarly Research Sources ............................................................................. 13 Training and
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Staff: Duties and Functions of Selected Positions
    Congressional Staff: Duties and Functions of Selected Positions Updated November 9, 2012 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL34545 Congressional Staff: Duties and Functions of Selected Positions Summary The United States Congress conducts several types of activities for which it employs staff. These activities include assisting Members in official responsibilities in personal, committee, leadership, or administrative office settings. Congressional career tracks generally mirror common stages of other professional careers, but with adaptations to the congressional workplace. These adaptations include relatively short career ladders on which staff may acquire substantial responsibilities in a relatively short period of time, and close support of a Member’s legislative and representational responsibilities. This report focuses on positions in House and Senate personal offices (Member staff), and provides sample position descriptions for 14 positions with similar job titles in each chamber. As with all congressional entities with employing authority, individual Members of Congress have wide discretion in setting many workplace policies, including procedures for establishing the duties and functions of staff positions. Staffing decisions may be determined by the priorities and goals of a congressional office, and the preferences and needs of a Member’s constituents. This report is one of several CRS products focusing on various aspects of congressional operations and administration. Others include CRS Report RL33686, Roles and Duties of a Member of Congress, by R. Eric Petersen; and CRS Report R41366, House of Representatives and Senate Staff Levels in Member, Committee, Leadership, and Other Offices, 1977-2010, by R. Eric Petersen and Amber Hope Wilhelm. Congressional Research Service Congressional Staff: Duties and Functions of Selected Positions Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Support Offices in the House of Representatives: Roles and Authorities
    Support Offices in the House of Representatives: Roles and Authorities Updated June 23, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33220 SUMMARY RL33220 Support Offices in the House of June 23, 2020 Representatives: Roles and Authorities Ida A. Brudnick Article I of the Constitution, in Sections 2 and 3, authorizes the House of Specialist on the Congress Representatives and Senate to choose their own officers. The number of such congressional support personnel, as well as their specific responsibilities, is left to the discretion of the chambers. Over time, both chambers have authorized a number of offices that assist them, collectively or individually, in their work. In the House, these offices include the Clerk of the House, Chief Administrative Officer, Sergeant at Arms, Office of the Legislative Counsel, Office of the Parliamentarian, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, Office of Congressional Ethics, House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, Office of the Inspector General, Office of General Counsel, House Chaplain, Historian of the House, Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman, and Office of Diversity and Inclusion. These offices perform legislative, administrative, financial, and ceremonial functions. They also ensure the protection of Congress and preserve its institutional memory. The roles of House support offices have been established by House Rules, statute, and custom. They are also shaped by the congressional authorities with policy, oversight, and funding responsibilities for the offices. These include the House Administration Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, the House Office Building Commission, and the Office of the Speaker. Four of the officers—the Clerk of the House, Chief Administrative Officer, Sergeant at Arms, and Chaplain—are elected by the House.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Capitol Visitor Center—Ten Years of Serving Congress and the American People
    THE U.S. CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER—TEN YEARS OF SERVING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 16, 2018 Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration ( Available on the Internet: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 32–666 WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:24 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032666 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\A666.XXX A666 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chairman ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia Ranking Member MARK WALKER, North Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia (II) VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:24 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032666 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\A666.XXX A666 THE U.S. CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER—TEN YEARS OF SERVING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2018 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper [Chair- man of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Harper, Davis, Walker, Brady, and Raskin. Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; Kim Betz, Deputy Staff Director/Policy and Oversight; Dan Jarrell, Legislative Clerk; Matt Field, Director of Oversight; Ed Puccerella, Professional Staff; Erin McCracken, Communications Director; Khalil Abboud, Minor- ity Deputy Staff Director; Kristie Muchnok, Minority Professional Staff. The CHAIRMAN. I now call to order the Committee on House Ad- ministration for purpose of today’s hearing, examining the United States Capitol Visitor Center as it approaches its tenth anniver- sary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Institutional Framework of Congressional Oversight: Purposes, Powers, Limitations and Practicalities
    H H H H H H H H H H H 2. The Institutional Framework of Congressional Oversight: Purposes, Powers, Limitations and Practicalities The law of congressional investigation consists of a complex combination of constitutional rulings and principles, statutory provisions, byzantine internal rules adopted by the House and Senate and individual committees, informal practices, and folkways. Although there is no black letter guide for the uninitiated, we hope that this study will provide a first step in that direction. To that end, this chapter sketches the purposes of oversight, the legal authorities to accomplish it, and the obstacles that congressional overseers face, both internal and external. A. The Purposes and Powers of Congressional Oversight Congressional oversight of the executive is designed to fulfill a number of important purposes and goals, including to: • ensure executive compliance with legislative intent; • improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of governmental operations; • evaluate program performance; • prevent executive encroachment on legislative powers and prerogatives; • investigate alleged instances of poor administration, arbitrary and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, fraud, and dishonesty; • assess agencies’ or officials’ ability to manage and carry out program objectives; • assess the need for new federal legislation; • review and determine federal financial priorities; • protect individual rights and liberties; and • inform the public about how its government is performing its public duties. Legislative oversight is most commonly conducted through congressional budget authorizations, appropriations, confirmations, and investigative processes, and, in rare instances, through impeachment. All legislative oversight serves the purpose of informing Congress so that it may effectively develop legislation, monitor the implementation of public policy, and disclose to the public how its government is performing.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Perspectives on U.S. Policy Toward North Korea and Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
    Congressional Perspectives on U.S. Policy Toward North Korea and Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula Kelsey Davenport with Julia Masterson An Arms Control Association Report August 2021 About the Authors Kelsey Davenport is the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, where she focuses on the nuclear and missile programs in Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan and on international efforts to prevent proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Julia Masterson is a research associate at the Arms Control Association, where she contributes research and analysis on nonproliferation and chemical weapons issues. Acknowledgements This report was made possible with the support of a generous grant from the Korea Foundation, as well as the support of the members of the Arms Control Association. The authors are responsible for the content of the report, and the statements and views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Arms Control Association’s Board of Directors. Cover Photo U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo arrives in Pyongyang, North Korea on July 5, 2018. Photo by U.S. Department of State. © Arms Control Association, August 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Introduction 4 Why Examine the Role of Congress in U.S. Policy on North Korea? 6 Notable Examples of Congressional Engagement on North Korea 14 Survey of Congressional Attitudes, Findings, and Methodology 24 Recommendations for Productively Engaging Congress on North Korea 27 Appendix A: Key Congressional Committees with Jurisdiction on U.S. Policy on North Korea 30 Endnotes Congressional Perspectives on U.S. Policy Toward North Korea and Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula 1 Introduction ddressing the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons is one of the most significant and complex challenges facing the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress for Fiscal Year 2010
    Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress for Fiscal Year 2010 Pursuant to Section 321 Public Law 91-510 Daniel P. Mulhollan Director March 2011 CONTENTS I. CRS SERVICE TO CONGRESS ............................................ 1 CRS as a Shared Resource, Aligned with Congress . 1 Indicators of CRS Performance ............................................. 1 The CRS Tradition ....................................................... 2 Outline of This Report .................................................... 4 II. FY2010 HIGHLIGHTS IN LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT . 5 Major Issues of the Year ................................................... 5 Other Research: Foreign Relations, Defense, and Trade . 10 Domestic Social Policy ................................................... 12 Government and the Economy ............................................. 15 Resources, Industry, and the Environment . 18 Law and Justice ......................................................... 18 III.MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES ............................................ 23 Strategic Planning ....................................................... 23 Client Satisfaction Assessment ............................................. 23 CRS Web Site Enhancements .............................................. 23 Management Tools ...................................................... 24 Content Management .................................................... 24 Mercury ............................................................... 24 APPENDIXES A.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Staff Organizations (Csos)
    Congressional Staff Organizations (CSOs) Committee on House Administration Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson Rodney Davis, Ranking Member 116th Congress United States House of Representatives revised june 2019 CONGRESSIONAL STAFF ORGANIZATIONS A - H Armenian Staff Association Sponsor(s): Rep. Frank Pallone, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, Rep. Jackie Speier Officer(s): • Maria Martirosyan, [email protected], 202-225-6235 Congressional Black Associates Sponsor(s): Rep. Yvette Clarke Officer(s): • Audra Jackson, [email protected], 713-540-0317 Congressional Catholic Staff Association Sponsor(s): Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, Rep. Daniel Lipinski Officer(s): • Katie Ryan, [email protected], 202-226-5174 Clean Energy and Technology Staff Association Sponsor(s): Rep. Joaquin Castro Officer(s): • Danielle Moon, [email protected], 202-226-7531 Democratic Digital Communications Staff Association Sponsor(s): Rep. Mark Takano Officer(s): • Yuri Beckelman, [email protected], 202-225-2305 Dreamers Congressional Staff Organization Sponsor(s): Rep. Pete Aguilar Officer(s): • Xenia Ruiz, [email protected], 202-226-0679 Friends of Hungary Sponsor(s): Rep. Andy Harris Officer(s): • Tim Daniels, [email protected], 202-225-5311 Congressional Hispanic Staff Association Sponsor(s): Rep. Veronica Escobar, Rep. Jenniffer González-Colón Officer(s): • Valeria Sandoval, [email protected], 202-224-2023 • Christine Godinez, [email protected], 202-225-5965 2 CONGRESSIONAL STAFF ORGANIZATIONS I - P Korean American Staff Association Sponsor(s): Rep. Mike Kelly Officer(s): • Diana Shin, [email protected], 202-226-1506 Latter-day Saint (LDS) Staff Organization Sponsor(s): Rep. Rob Bishop Officer(s): • Ryan Martin, [email protected], 202-224-4515 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Congressional Staff Association Sponsor(s): Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Federal Services
    GUIDE TO FEDerAL SerVices IF YOU neeD TO LEAD, SHAPE OR FOLLOW THE LegisLATIVE PROcess, we Are Here TO HELP YOU. What’s new Early Insights Ease of use Mobile Real time Blogs written by our New interfaces Now you can New apps and experts give you the save you time use CQ on any alerts keep you first take and guide and power your device and from in the know in you through each day experience any location real time 1 CQ ROLL CALL KNOws COngress and the complex factors that drive the legislative process in today’s rapidly changing world. We’ve been covering Congress and legislation for seven decades—ever since 1945. Our tradition of excellence and commitment to innovation gives our customers access to institutional know-how and workflow tools that no media outlet can match. Every day, our suite of smart products will put the industry’s best content and technology to work for you. How? We are nonpartisan. We are fact-driven. We are insightful. You can count on us You can count of us to give You can count us to give to tell you the way it is you the facts, not an endless you the story behind the —free from bias. stream of irrelevant stories. story—insights only experts can provide. We are real-time. We are work-flow. We are customizable. You can count us to keep You can count on us You can mix and match you updated at all times: to provide tools that our vast capabilities 365 days a year and 24-7.
    [Show full text]